Rule query

I was playing in a tournament with a few mates yesterday ( the hottest day of the year ) and a controversial incident occured which we were in disagreement with.

I'll explain what happened and see what yous think should have happened.

There was one red left which was right beside the black which was on its spot. My mate (whos not very good ) had a free ball against me and played the brown down the table with topspin and planned to run through and snooker me behind the blue which was on its spot. He misjudged the shot though and the cueball landed well wide of the blue and down near the green spot.

But the brown picked up pace and flew off the baulk cushion and ended up covering the last red with only about 1/3rd off it sticking out but with the black being in close proximity and the lengthy shot, i claimed he should be forced to play the shot as it was like a "free ball in reverse" as i couldnt see both sides of the object ball because of the brown which was the ball he played when he had the free ball, which shouldnt have came into consideration.

He claimed because he hadnt snookered me ( i could still see 1/3rd of the ball) i had to play the shot.

We argued for a while and in the end i decided to reluctantly play the shot just to shut him up, in the end i hut it and actually flucked a snooker which prompted a shout out of JUSTICE from me

Whats the official position then?

Snookering behind a free ball is a foul you cant snooker a red behind a red which the brown became therefore it was 4 points to you and a free ball.

wildJONESEYE wrote:Snookering behind a free ball is a foul you cant snooker a red behind a red which the brown became therefore it was 4 points to you and a free ball.

so even though i wasnt fully snookered by the brown ball, but because i couldnt hit both sides of the object ball the same rule applies then with 4 points and a free ball.

Its a scenario ive never seen before because obviously when you see pros playing they never come close to "snookering" the opponent behind the free ball they played. And in any games ive played in, even at our standard it never comes close to happening.

yes or that has always been my understanding of it.

I thought the definition of a snooker is when you cannot see both sides of the object ball. I think in this case because you could hit some of the object ball it wasn’t a foul stroke by your opponent. Not 100% sure though.

I think wild is right. The rule is to stop the roll up being used in a free ball situation but if the free ball travels around the table and flukes a snooker between white and object ball then it's a foul and a free ball back. The bit I don't know about is if the snooker is defined as not being able to hit both sides of the object ball. I would guess that counts as a snooker in this scenario. Need another opinion.

Sonny wrote:I think wild is right. The rule is to stop the roll up being used in a free ball situation but if the free ball travels around the table and flukes a snooker between white and object ball then it's a foul and a free ball back. The bit I don't know about is if the snooker is defined as not being able to hit both sides of the object ball. I would guess that counts as a snooker in this scenario. Need another opinion.

for it not to be a freeball you have to be able to hit the object full ball so in a roll up behind the brown as the freeball and you miss judge it but you partly snooker the red its the same punishment ie foul as if it was tight behind or as i say thats always been my understanding of it and im not going to go through the rule book to get the definition lol

I'll ask around but I'd have to think it's a foul/free ball back.

sickpotter wrote:I'll ask around but I'd have to think it's a foul/free ball back.

well if you dont know we are up the creek lol

LOL!!

Knowing the rules and being able to interpret them in every single situation is something even the refs mess up once in a while.

I'm just a lowly player